SUPPORT JULIAN ASSANGE

Sunday, July 10, 2016

July 09, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Boston Globe" - BRITAIN’S VOTE to quit the
European Union was a rude jolt to the encrusted world order. Now that the EU
has been shocked into reality, NATO should be next.When NATO leaders convene
for a summit in Warsaw on Friday, they will insist that their alliance is still
vital because Russian aggression threatens Europe. The opposite is true. NATO
has become America’s instrument in escalating our dangerous conflict with
Russia. We need less NATO, not more.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 as a way for
American troops to protect a war-shattered Europe from Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Today Europe is quite capable of shaping and paying for its own security, but
NATO’s structure remains unchanged. The United States still pays nearly
three-quarters of its budget. That no longer makes sense. The United States
should remain politically close to European countries but stop telling them how
to defend themselves. Left to their own devices, they might pull back from the
snarling confrontation with Russia into which NATO is leading them.

Russia threatens none of America’s vital interests. On the contrary, it
shares our eagerness to fight global terror, control nuclear threats, and
confront other urgent challenges to global security. Depending on one’s
perspective, Russia may be seen as a destabilizing force in Europe or as simply
defending its border regions. Either way, it is a challenge for Europeans, not
for us. Yet the American generals who run NATO, desperate for a new mission,
have fastened onto Russia as an enemy. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
preposterously places Russia first on his list of threats to the United States.
Anti-Russia passion has seized Washington.

This week’s NATO summit will be a festival of chest-thumping, with many
warnings about the Russian “threat” and solemn vows to meet it with shows of
military force. The United States plans to quadruple spending on NATO military
projects on or near Russia’s borders. In recent weeks NATO has opened a new
missile base in Romania, held the largest military maneuver in the modern
history of Poland, and announced plans to deploy thousands more American troops
at Baltic bases, some within artillery range of St. Petersburg. Russia, for its
part, is building a new military base within artillery range of Ukraine and deploying
30,000 troops to border posts. Both sides are nuclear-armed.

NATO views trouble between Russia and nearby countries as a military
problem. That makes sense. NATO is a military alliance run by military officers
who think in military terms. Our conflict with Russia, however, is essentially
political, not military. It cries out for creative diplomacy. NATO is a blunt
instrument unequipped for such a delicate task. If Europeans believe
tit-for-tat escalation is the best way to deal with Russia, let them pursue it.
But it should be their choice, not ours.

NATO commanders and their political masters in Washington do not want
to surrender control over European security. They fear Europeans would seek
conciliation with Russia rather than follow the NATO model of in-your-face
confrontation. That prospect is abhorrent to American generals, politicians,
and defense contractors. By continuing to finance NATO, we buy the right to
flash our swords on Russia’s borders.

Some Europeans are unhappy with America’s use of NATO to intensify military
pressure on Russia. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany called
the recent maneuvers in Poland, in which 14,000 American troops participated,
“saber-rattling and war cries.” In a clear rebuke to NATO, he added, “Whoever
believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will
bring security is mistaken. We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew
an old confrontation.”

NATO helped to keep peace in Europe during the Cold War. It is not suited
to the 21st century. By stoking tension with Russia, it contributes to
instability, not stability. Europe needs a new security system. Unlike NATO, it
should be designed by Europeans to meet European needs, run and paid for by
Europeans. That would allow the United States to step back from a long mission
that may have been noble, but should not last forever.

Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for
International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.

assange

At midday on Friday 5 February, 2016 Julian Assange, John Jones QC, Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzon will be speaking at a press conference at the Frontline Club on the decision made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the Assange case.